Alaskan Leaders Speak Out Against Supreme Court Decision – And What You Can Do.
22 01 2010
If Alaskans had any doubts about which elected representatives are working for YOU, and which ones are working for the chance to have their campaigns bought and paid for by the oil companies, here’s a handy list. I am proud of each one of them, and those that had the wisdom to elect them. They are patriots.
Five Democrats in the Alaska State Legislature today decried the US Supreme Court decision that strikes down laws that banned corporations from using their own money to support or oppose candidates for public office. The decision will allow large corporations to use their profits to buy political campaign ads.
The five conservative justices who made up the majority in the 5-4 decision said long-standing bans against corporate political ads created an unconstitutional restraint of free speech. Sen. Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage), Reps Les Gara and Max Gruenberg (both D-Anchorage) and Reps Scott Kawasaki and David Guttenberg (both D-Fairbanks) say the opposite is true, and that the court’s decision shifts First Amendment protections from individual Americans to Corporations.
Rep. Les Gara
“Today Corporate America took the First Amendment from Americans,” Gara said. “ It’s why corporate executives put so much money into past presidential campaigns – to successfully take over the Supreme Court,” Gara is a former Alaska Assistant Attorney General.
Rep. David Guttenberg
“This decision allows the sound of shuffling dollars to drown out the voices of American voters, and establishes a precedent for government to the highest bidder,” Guttenberg said.
Rep. Scott Kawasaki
In his dissent Justice John Paul Stevens, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”
“After years of undue influence over policy, I am concerned that now big oil and corporations will have free reign over the election process and be on equal footing with the average Alaskan,” Kawasaki said.
In a strong statement issued shortly after the decision President Barack Obama said, “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Not only will this allow large multi-nationals to pour money into US elections, but it will increase their ability to wield political clout, holding policymakers hostage for fear of losing corporate advertising support and influence.
“This decision is a slap in the face to Alaskans and our attempts to keep big money out of politics,” Wielechowski said. “The Supreme Court has put out the welcome mat for influence peddling of the worst kind.”
Rep. Max Gruenberg
The decision may threaten similar state bans on corporate involvement in Alaska elections, and the five Democrats are planning specific actions to protect Alaskan voters from unwelcome corporate meddling.
We also have someone representing the interest of Alaskans and all Americans on the federal level. I had the pleasure of speaking with Mark Begich today on the Shannyn Moore Show about this issue. Hours after the decision was handed down, Senator Begich released the statement below. Congressman Don Young apparently thinks this is a complicated issue, and has to think about it. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s office said she’d have something to say in a couple days. I guess it takes a while to parse words when you’re on the wrong side of democracy.
Senator Mark Begich
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich released this statement following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court today allowing corporations to spend freely to support or oppose candidates for Congress or President:
“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on campaign financing is a shameful step backward toward big money special interests exercising too much influence over American political campaigns. The campaign finance provisions struck down by the Court were the result of years of careful, bipartisan compromise.
“Alaska followed suit in passing some of the strictest state campaign finance laws in the nation. Alaskans want strict accountability on who gives to candidates for public office, we demand full disclosure and we strictly limit the amount that can be donated by individuals only.
“I’ll work with Senate colleagues to keep big special interest money out of our national politics.”
How hard have Alaskans worked in the past two years to get the oil industry out of our politics? Isn’t this why the majority of Alaskans actually voted for Sarah Palin to become our governor? We believed that she wanted to clean up government, and get rid of the special interests, tainted politicians and big oil influence out of the halls of the capitol. Isn’t this why we cheered the FBI as they raided the offices of legislators? Several of them are in jail or on their way. Every Alaskan needs to call their legislators, their congressman, and their senators (you can thank one of them). Tell them that we are tired of our politicians being available to the highest bidder. We are tired of the oil industry running our government. We are tired of corporate interests dominating the will of the people.
Find your Legislators HERE.
And we have a question. Where are the Republicans?
Find out why Senator Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665 and Congressman Don Young (202) 225-5765 have not come out forcefully against this kind of corporate and big money intrusion into OUR government.
For those of you out of Alaska, go HERE and enter your zip code to find your representatives. If you were ever going to call them, this is the time and this is the issue.
Any Alaskan Legislators who are taking a position against this outrageous decision, feel free to contact me a akmuckraker(at)yahoo(dot)com and I’ll add you to the list.
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO?
On a national level, Alan Grayson is introducing five pieces of legislation to address this ruling. Read them, and if you support them, contact your representative and encourage him/her to do the same.
Join the movement for a constitutional amendment declaring that only people are people. Sign the petition at movetoamend.org
Ralph Nader said, “I think it’s so bad it will provoke a backlash,” and has called this a “spectacular opportunity to educate the public.” So get educated. It’s your responsibility. Be able to talk about the issues in a non-partisan way, even with those you disagree with politically. This is not a partisan issue.
Here are some great websites you can check out and pass on:
Center for Media and Democracy
Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy
Read and explore, check out their blogrolls. Surf. Add them to your own blogrolls if you have a blog. Share what you learn.
Another great resource is Thom Hartmann’s book Unequal Protection.
How can we allow corporations to have all the rights that flesh and blood human beings have, plus all the privileges and immunities they have that citizens do not have? We simply can’t.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 PM
LiladyNY, My thoughts on Scott Brown, and I could be way off base BUT. I think he is going to track much closer to the center than the R’s could have imagined, and could possibly throw a monkey wrench into the NO mantra. I would also not be surprised if he switched to an indy before his term is up. Running as a repug up there was a good move, but to stay in the game, he will have to move left.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 PM
I was composing a letter to FL reps to support Grayson’s bills, when the first one I went with was mine, Kendrick Meek, who is, co-inky-dink, the leading democratic candidate running for the open U.S. Senate seat! How perfect is this? He’s in a position to show where he stands on this issue between now and the Nov. election. And that’s what I asked him to do. I expect I will hear back from him …. OK, monday or tuesday.
Seriously, this is the litmus test. Ask Michelle Bachmann her opinion. Ask John McCain. Ask Lisa Murkowski (oh, you did and she’ll be gettin’ back to ya). Ask Rick Perry. Ask Kay B. Hutchison. Ask Barbara Boxer. Ask Carly Fiorina. I hope all the folks in Mass. bombard Mr. Scott Brown with what they want him to do, and he certainly should weigh in with this one. Everyone of them should. It’s a simple question. You think its right or wrong. Not a lot of waffle or wiggle room in this one. Quite frankly, I’m sympathetic, and from what I read of the judgment (not by any means all), the argument they came down with had a lot of reasoning, but in the end, I do not think that corporations deserve the same rights as individual American citizens. I believe that they can and should have certain rights but also certain regulations. So then, those that agree with the Supreme Court ruling should be delighted to sign on to one or more of Rep. Grayson’s proposed bills to regulate.
If not?
They’re just big Butt Pies!
Nothing like a little childishness at the end of a post!
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:12 PM
I’m a follow the money/power type of person. What are the Robert’s Five getting out of this! Who in their families sit on what boards. Who wants to be elected to federal office! Come on, media! Check it out. Or have the corporations already bought you.
With prop 8 in California last year, I was appalled at how much money poured in from out of state. It’s our state, so it should be our free speech. And, while I’ll send money to Grayson and Conyers, I really feel that reps and senators should get the money from their own constituents.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 PM
How about tax free non-profits can they also run negative adds?
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Forgive me, last page I forgot the name, please don’t give up. People do get it. The seriousness of this yes, to the point of …inactivity…moving…suicide? No, we have to keep on caring and trying, if not for our own families but for others. That is that in my mind. Only my opinion, but we only have one round on earth in this lifetime. We have one life here and we should make the best that we can for all of us. Well that sounded dorky )o:
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 PM
“We should be aware of ignorance just as much as we should be aware of terrorism” ~ Benjamin Blech
*************
Although the above quote was made in reference to a different situation, I believe it fits *exceptionally* well with the discussion of yesterday’s SCOTUS decision and the public’s reaction to it.
I live in a VERY red state and was most surprised by the results of a poll conducted by a local TV station (CBS affiliate) about the ruling. The station runs a new poll daily, and by and large, the results seem to consistently reflect the views of folks I run into in the area.
Granted, the poll isn’t scientific — one has to ‘cast their vote’ on line, so that limits participation… at least some degree, but I’ve found the daily poll to be a good ‘barometer’ of my neighbor’s attitudes.
Since the state is about as red as a state can get, the poll results usually infuriate me… today’s results, though, totally and utterly floored me!
The poll question was: “Should corporations and unions be allowed to spend as much as they want on political campaigns?” The poll results were:
Yes 17.9%
No 82.1%
As I look at the poll results, I’m shaking my head at the 17.9% who voted “yes”; it appears they’re so lacking in civics education that they haven’t a clue about influence buying, corruption, and graft in politics. (I can only pray to the heaven’s above that the 82.1% who voted “no” realized the question was *not* a hypothetical one –that it’s now a reality as a result of SCOTUSs decision!)
In any event, I, personally, view the SCOTUS decision from yesterday to be among the most egregious examples of *internal* terrorism –ever!– perpetrated against this nation of ours; I don’t think any of us were prepared for the possibility of the ruling they made because even the thought of it was too damned absurd and outrageous to contemplate.
Which brings me to the other part of the post-opening quote…being aware of ignorance. I think we’ve all got our work cut out for us – being aware of, and reversing!, ignorance whenever and where ever we find it. Although I was heartened by the large number who’re ‘agin’’ the idea of corporation and union money pouring, gushing, hemorrhaging into campaigns, I’m not convinced those 82.1% who voted “no” know the reason *why* that stance is so crucial to our democracy; certainly the 17.9% who voted “yes,” don’t.
Time to roll up my sleeves, put on my best “golly, gee, that sure is swell” smile, and get back to work trying to make a dent in this area’s running rampant ignorance. Lord, but making even a wee dent is sometimes just so incredibly hard… beth.
[ Source of quote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34973665/ns/travel-news/ ]
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 PM
@ #44 Frank LI NY:
“…potential of becoming a major global threat….”
EXACTLY, Frank!
We were *already* in trouble with our US dollar, national debt, banks, real estate, unemployment — and consequently we’ve been the perfect cheap investment for foreign dollars.
NOW the supremes open this can of worms and make it possible for anyone, anywhere in the world to control our politics and the direction of our nation — with money. And in UMLIMITED amounts!
Outrage!!!!!!!!
Maybe we should sue, asking for the same rights as the “corporate indidivuals” have? …..
We gotta write all of those representatives, state & national!!!
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 PM
[...] Thanks, Mudflats! [...]
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 AM
#57 yukonbushgrma:
Maybe we should sue, asking for the same rights as the “corporate individuals” have? …..
………………..
We have those same rights. The problem is, we don’t have access to large sums of money as they do.
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:51 AM
There they go again, those rethugs. Another proof positive case of their hypocrisy. Always demeaning any Judge that a Democrat wants to appoint as a ‘Judicial Activist’.
If this isn’t a case of severe Judicial Activism, then I don’t think I’ll ever see one. This is literally giving people (of a Corporation) two votes each. Since the electorate is supposed to be a private issue while voting, how can they know if the Corporations are playing both sides of the fence? holding out for the highest bribe? Now, we really do have to fear Fascism. If $arah doesn’t go rogue on Murdoch, she could very well become POTUS.
I can’t and don’t even want to imagine what could come from this unconstitutional decision………………..
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:57 AM
Just posted my disgust at the SC ruling on The Facebook along with some links. Hope my network of folks, some of whom probably didn’t even know about it, will check it out, sign petitions, and pass the word along to their friends. If anything ever needed to go ‘viral’, it’s this.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:38 AM
Educating the people and helping them become aware is the sign of a progressive minded person. Thank you all for the compassion you show.
On the other hand, the poor people of Bush Alaska has lived under the thumbs of the Corporate Greed leeches since prior to statehood. Change is slow but steady. I count my blessings everytime I could influence at least one person out of thousand. Change is slow but steady.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:09 AM
Money talks…Bull **** walks….
but I agree with Nader…this is a GREAT opportunity to hit hard back….
I am going a surfing on conservative sites…just want to find out for those who hold the consitution so dear (as so do I)…what their response is….should be outrage..but will see….
I keep thinking of my dad….fought in WWII for freedoms and our constitution…never would have he or anyone of his generation think they were risking their lives for the rights of a corporation!!
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:16 AM
My friend in Tennessee just sent this to me. A picture says a thousand words.
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tmdsh/2010/tmdsh100121.gif
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Except for Sen. Begich, I don’t know why these guys are complaining.
Seems to me that the state-level legislators have plenty of work to do in correctly AK law – see Troopergate investigation and Murphy’s ruling on backchannel emails – before they start complaining about federal rulings.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 AM
LiladyNY – I received several copies of that very same image and I encourage anyone and everyone who has their own blog to post that image.
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Those are all wonderful quotes. But it’s all BS if you can’t smack down smiley face John Roberts and his fascist posse. Deeds, not words.
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Beth at 56: The poll was flawed.
If it had said: “Should Unions have the right to spend yadda yadda” you’d have seen a 100% no from your red brethren.
If it had said “Should businesses have the right….” you’d have seen a much higher percentage of yes.
It’s all in how it’s phrased.
Remember, there’s lies, damned lies and then there’s statistics.
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:30 PM
What happened to our history? We forget why our founders did what they did.
“I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:31 PM
United Corporations of America
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/uc/20100123/largeimagejd100122.gif
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:45 PM
Just add in tort reform and the people will be limited in their ability to sue corporations. Nothing about it limits their ability to continue bad practices, and over ride justice with their expensive battery of lawyers. Exxon anyone?
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Oath of Office:
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20100123/largeimage.c072ffe927c4b957efcbe16b83841adf.gif
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Imagine if Corporations were allowed to rewrite tort reform along the same lines the credit card companies were allowed to rewrite bankruptcy legislation or Big Pharma rewrite the Medicare Rx.
We are so totally screwed.
There is nothing we can do to reverse this. Anything law Congress attempts to enact can be declared unconstitutional by the Fascist Five.
And soon the Corporations will own ALL of Congress. They’ll replace the few congressmen we have left, like Alan Grayson, that see what is happening and try to stop it.
They’ll install their own puppet figurehead in the Oval Office and that will be it.
Once they take over public education through privatization they’ll be able to educate generations to never realize they are living in a fascist state. State board of education approves textbook adoptions. You can be sure corporations will control both content of the textbooks and which books get adopted. (This is why teachers are on the danger list and rounded up for disappearance when there is a takeover).
Net neutrality will be history so there will be no means to network or communicate or educate.
Patriot Act will take care of Public Libraries.
Librarians will be rounded up too. The educational elite (professors, etc.) are always on “the list” to disappear.
It won’t happen right away. We need to be made the target of those that feel oppressed and victimized. Once we are to blame for everything, there will be little outcry if we just disappear. The media will spin the public. This will be much more subtle and will take much longer than happened 80 years ago. It will be slow, quiet and insidious. In already has been. That’s how we got where we are now.
Communism. Capitalism. Two side of the same coin resulting in the same outcome. It just took Capitalism longer to deteriorate our democracy into where it is now.
Unfortunately “told you so” will be very cold comfort once it’s irreversible.
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 PM
Doris “Granny D” Haddock
Campaign finance reform advocate
What We Can and Should Do About the Campaign Finance Ruling
What’s Your Reaction
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doris-/what-we-can-and-should-do_b_433204.html
Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.
If your brother-in-law has a road paving company, it is clear that you, as an elected official, must not vote to give him a contract, as you have a conflict of interest. Do you have any less of an ethical conflict if you are voting for that contract not because he is a brother-in-law, but because he is a major donor to your campaign? Should you ethically vote on health issues if health companies fund a large chunk of your campaign? The success of your campaign, after all, determines your future career and financial condition. You have a conflict.
Let us say, through the enactment of new laws, that a politician can no longer take any action, or arrange any action by another official, if the action, in the opinion of that legislative body’s civil service ethics officer, would cause special gain to a major donor of that official’s campaign. The details of such a program will be daunting, but we need to figure them out and get them into law.
Remarkably, many better corporations have an ethical review process to prevent their executives from making political contributions to officials who decide issues critical to that corporation. Should corporations have a higher standard than the United States Congress? And many state governments have tighter standards, too. Should not Congress be the flagship of our ethical standards? Where is the leadership to make this happen this year?
This kind of reform should also be pushed in the 14 states where citizens have full power to place proposed statutes on the ballot and enact them into law. About 70% of voters would go for a ballot measure to “toughen our conflict of interest law,” I estimate. In the scramble that would follow, either free campaign advertising would be required as a condition of every community’s contract with cable providers (long overdue), or else there would be a mad dash for public campaign financing programs on the model of Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut. Maybe both things would happen, which would be good.
I urge the large reform organizations to consider this strategy. They have never listened to me in the past, but they also have not gotten the job done and need to come alive or now get out of the way.
And to the Supreme Court, you force us to defend our democracy–a democracy of people and not corporations–by going in breathtaking new directions.
And so we shall.
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:25 PM
What a woman!!!!!!!!!
Doris “Granny D” Haddock
Doris “Granny D” Haddock, 100 as of Jan. 24, lives in the woods of southern New Hampshire.
Doris raised two children during the Great Depression and worked at a shoe company for twenty years.
With her husband, Jim, Doris helped stop the planned testing of hydrogen bombs in……….. Alaska in 1960, saving an Inuit fishing village at Point Hope.
After the defeat of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold’s first attempt to remove unregulated “soft” money from campaigns in 1995, Doris became interested in campaign reform and led a petition movement.
On January 1, 1999–at the age of 89–she began a 3,200–mile walk across the country to gather support for the issue.
She trekked over 1,000 miles of desert, climbed the Appalachian Range in blizzard conditions and skied 100 in to Washington, D.C. after a historic snowfall made roadside walking impossible.
In Washington, she was met by 2,200 supporters and several dozen members of Congress.
It took two more years to gain passage of the McCain/Feingold bill, during which time Doris engaged in walking fasts around the Capitol, organized rallies in many states, and held demonstrations that twice landed her in DC jails.
In 2003, Doris had her eyes on the upcoming election, and so she drove around the country on a 22,000 mile voter registration effort targeting working women and minorities.
This trek was cut short in June 2004, when Doris heard that the presumed Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in NH had dropped out of the race days before the filing deadline.
Doris became the Democratic challenger, in a successful effort to pin down Judd Gregg in New Hampshire and help move New Hampshire to Kerry, which happened by a slim margin attributed by some to her campaign
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doris-
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Thank you for this – thank you for the original post that brought it to my attention. Thank you and your very informed readers/posters – I like to read the comments and get to the links (the time though! where do you all get it?).
Just thank you. I’m trying to get the word out to everyone I know and sometimes being a real ass about it too (a stretch, I’m sure). It’s astounding to me that more people are not outraged. The apathy is amazing (except of course, when it comes to the every day guy with the truck, yes I’m from MA and depressed about it these days).
And thank you again for this blog.
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Please help….Can anyone tell me why …..all of a sudden…… I get the following when I try to go to the Mudflats home page??:
Domain Default page
This page is generated by Parallels Plesk Panel – leading hosting automation control panel. You see this page because you have set up your Web server for serving a new site, but have not uploaded the site content yet.
January 23rd, 2010 at 5:50 PM
I really like Guttenberg’s tie.
I think ties speak a lot about the man who wears them.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Here’s an idea. Let’s put the seats at SCROTUS (Supreme Court RADICALS of the US) up for auction to the highest bidders. We can have a Justice of Exxon-Mobil, a Justice of Microsoft, a Justice of Goldman-Sachs, etc. It’s a lot more efficient use of stockholder’s money since it’s much less expensive to buy 9 justices than it is to buy 100 senators, 400 plus congressmen and 50 governors.
If we’re going to completely subvert our democracy and our finest institutions, we may as well do it as economically as possible.
The Founding Fathers were an educated bunch, successful, wealthy businessmen who knew well how to use their mother tongue. Clearly if they had wanted to extend essential liberties to businesses, they could easily have said so.
I went through my copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights last night. I found the following mentions:
People: 17
Human: 1
Person 18
Persons 10
Corporation: 0
Zero mention of corporations. Just which constitution are our justices reading, anyway?
Thank you for the links, Mudflats!
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Martha @ 77 – that happened to me late on Friday night! It was so annoying!! I thought it happened because I downloaded a google package but I was able to access the page after rebooting.
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Caitlin O at 79: They already own 5. They don’t need any more.
After they initial outlay for 2010, 2012, 2014 and of course the 2012 presidential race, they won’t have to spend as much. Once they flex their weight, their costs will go way down.
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:35 PM
I found out that the ACLU(!) supports this ruling using “free speech” as their (BS) reasoning. I wrote and told them how craven and appalling and disasterous this decision was, that the individual American has no chance against “the senator from Exxon”, and that I could no longer in good conscience support them and they will get no further donations from me.
January 24th, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Here is a thought that keeps coming to me. While Supreme Court justices are pretty immune to being unseated, these guys need to go. It may be out of the people’s power to make them go, but it is within our power to let them know that they did a very bad thing and can no longer hold the trust of the people.
What I would like to see is someone who is good with petitions to start one calling on these justices to resign. They won’t resign, but let’s say a few million were to sign such a petition. That would have impact.